Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-02
State AFFAIRS.
Continued from First Page.

plea he tacitly admitted his guilt; that in
order to make the plea effectual the fact
must be admitted that there were Of
lenses committed utder the former term.
He then addressed himself to the evidence
in the investigation where the proceeds
were detailed relative to the fraudulent
and collusive proceedings in the Donley
county court, concluding his argument
by an appeal to the Senate to do their
dGty.
THE DEFENSE.
Judge Willis then opened the case in
behalf of the defense by referring to the
language used by the Attorney General IN
his argument before the Senate commit
tee, that it was harsh and unwarranted,
and that he thought the prosecute
should be carried on in more dignified
manner. He then addressed himself to
the mode of proceedings before the Sen
ate, arguing that they were acting ia
judicial capacity as a court, and not as
Legislators. Assuming this to be
true, he claimed that if he pre-
sented q legal defense that would be
sufficient to meet the charges against
him, therefore in setting up the legal de-
| feDse that he could not be removed for
acts committed under q former term OF
Office, he did not admit his guilt. Com
menting on the statue relative to the
clause that said an officer could not be
removed from office for an act Comitted
under former term, he referred to all
the officers from the supreme judges
down to justices of the peace, reading de-
cisions that held that reelection created
new office, and that the occupant was
different officer, and the acts referred to
were at another and different office, and the
respondent must be charged with sOme
act subsequent to the former term. Re-
ferrlng to the proceedings In the House,
he claimed that he did not expect the
proceedings of address would be resOrted
to; that the Attorney General claimed be-
fore the committee that he was acting
under Impeachment, end when he found
that impeachment would only lie for an
ind:Ctlble offense, he resorted TO the pres
ent proceedings Of an adore So. Judge
Willis then compared the present pro-
ceedings with former proceed
ings under former Legislatures
| of Texas. He then arranged
the Attorney General and the committee
Of the House as acting without precedent
or law. He arraigned the House of Rep
reeentatives for acting without evidence
in his conviction. He then referred to
the Panhandle, giving vivid description
of the condition of affairs and the impOs-
! Sibllity of choosing the best quality and
kind of jurors to serve IN the courts be-
cause OF the scarcity of the population.
| He then closed his argument by referring
! to the charges under which be was ar
raigned before them, claiming they were
| informal and insufficient in that they did
not give the time or place of the commits
sion of the offense with any precision.
| When the Senate convened to night,
Judge Willis resumed his argument in
| mis- own behalf by reading and comment
! ing upon authorities that he produced to
defend himself against the charge that ne
permitted the defendants to sit upon each
Others juries. He read from the Legis-
lative Journal in the impeachment charges
against Judge Scott in 1878, claim
Ing that Judge Scott was charged with
the very acts that he WAS charged
with not doing. Referring to the
reasons why he did not change
the venue in the cases on his
own motion, he said that he considered
| that it would have been unCOnstitutional,
and he had no right to interfere in the
cases Judge Willis traversed the facts
! of the states witnesses. occupying the full
time grant to the defense, and by
motion of Senator Calhoun his time was
extended one half hour longer. He closed
! his argument by passionate appeal to
| the Senate.
THE CLOSING ARGUMENT.
Attorney General Hogg then closed
| the argument in behalf Of the prOsecu-
ton H complimented Judge Willis for
| his lengthy argument In his own behalf.
| He then met the issues laid down by
Judge Willis, and wl,h sCathiDg re5uke
| 10 thu respondent for his reflections upon
the action Of the House committee, the
House of r representatives. and even the
Senate committee itself, contrO-
vertlng the law proposition
{ set up by the respondent
TO support the proposition that an officer
could not be addressed out OF office for
! offenses charged to have been committed
during g prior term. He read the de
cisions cited by Judge Willis, and showed
that the Judge did not represent the true
purpOrt of the decisions of the courts.
The facts in the testimony were then re-
ferred to IN proof of the farcical proceed
ings in Judge Willis court to cOntrovert
the defense set up by Judge
Wills OF Dtlng ignorant Vi JIG IeldIIoho
Of the defendants in his court, and their
employees who sat on the juries He then
arraigned Judge Willis as being either
negIisently or willtully cognizant of what
was going on.
The Senate then adjourned until $3.50
| tomorrow morning.
| TO FURNISH THE NEW CAPITAL.
! The Senate bill making an apprOpris-
ton of $3.50, 900 to furnish the new cspital
building and improve the grounds has not
yet been under consideration in the
House, and it is now questioned whether
in the days that remain of the session the
measure will be reached, Notwithstanding
the contractors give the assurance that
the building will be completed before the
sitting of the Twenty first Legislature.